The Surreal world of FitzHolley

Following the last Council meeting six weeks ago (see previous blogs – those I haven't accidentally deleted that is) there was a brisk and robust exchange of correspondence between the Chief Executive and the Opposition Group Leaders (Rene Kinzett and myself), which in my case I followed up at my regular 1-2-1 with Paul Smith. (I cannot speak for RK as these meetings are confidential, 'Chatham House rules'.)

It would be fair to say that there was (and probably remains) a significant difference of opinion as to the cause of the ridiculous way that the meetings are conducted. The Presiding Officer (PO) seems to go out of her way to be confrontational. As PO she should not only be impartial but be seen to be so. I rather got the impression yesterday that she genuinely thinks that she is being impartial. If this is correct, then I couldn't begin to guess what this would mean for those times when she would be being partial! I had cause to remonstrate with her yesterday about her irritated body language, her terse "Yes, Cllr X, what do you want now...!" or words to that effect and her total refusal to engage with or listen to what a speaker is saying – at least insofar as she comprehends what is being asked. In her hands, these essentially silent signals become screamed down a megaphone! And as I reported previously, this has the effect of raising the temperature and creating animosity and aggression where there was none. I thought afterwards that she comes on like Joyce Grenfell in that sketch of hers, "Nigel...don't do that", some out-of-her-depth playschool assistant. This was rather confirmed later in the meeting when she had the sheer brass neck to remonstrate with Council that they were behaving like children!

The opening of yesterdays meeting was a case in point. At the start of every meeting councillors are asked to approve the accuracy of the Minutes of the previous meeting - standard practice. Sometimes, but not often, it is alleged that they are inaccurate, generally an error or oversight. I cannot recollect when Minutes have been challenged that the correction has not been accepted.

At the previous council meeting Council had a ludicrous debate about whether to have a report from a legal officer about constitutional changes concerning the Pension Fund. (The matter had been postponed from the previous meeting for just such a report – see earlier blogposts). The Minutes of that item were up for approval yesterday. I challenged the accuracy of the Minute as it did not include any reference to vote that was won, NOT to have the report and that that decision was then over-ruled by the Monitoring Officer (MO) who insisted that we had to have the report (and no, I don't know why he didn't say it before the vote either!)

Group Leaders are sent as copy of the Minutes in advance of publication so any errors can be corrected and the Minutes agreed without the sort of stupid public debate we had yesterday. In reading the draft I noticed what I thought was an error of omission (albeit a large one). Now I didn't consider this to be contentious and wrote to the Committee section pointing the 'error' out. Although I understand that the matter was referred to the MO, the letter was ignored and the Minute left to stand as written. So perhaps the omission wasn't an error after all!

So yesterday, I rose to have another go at getting the Minutes correct and we then entered the world of the surreal. The PO refused to accept the challenge stating "Minutes were not a verbatim transcript". No indeed they are not, they are a record of what Council decided and Council decided not to have a report, a decision that was subsequently over-ruled by the MO. So all this should have been in the Minutes – but wasn't. The Chief Executive (CE) and the MO both agreed that I was right. Now the simple solution (and standard practice) was for them to accept the 'error' and agree to record the change. But no, the CE proposed some sort of halfway house that would note my comments but not change the Minute and then the PO supported by the Leader of Council Chris Holley, put the matter to the vote and Council decided to accept as accurate, Minutes that the CE and MO had agreed were inaccurate! Surreal, no? Bizarre certainly. (The whole Administration voted to accept and Labour and the Conservatives voted not to. I didn't see which way the Brilliant Comrade and his pals voted).

And the purpose of all of this – I truly have no idea.

What I do know is that ensured that meeting got off to a fractious start – and for no good purpose. I suppose that the Intervention Board members sitting in the Gallery must have thought they were in for a re-run of the last meeting. I am certainly getting fed-up with it all. And the credibility of Council under FitzHolley? – it continues to slide through the floor.

There is now no interaction between the political parties and the CE has proposed that he call in the marriage guidance councillors in the person of some sort of mediator. RK and myself have said this is of no use, until he and the MO get a firmer grip on proceedings and the PO is not only included in the mediation but sent on some training. I understand that Mrs F. has a Social Science degree – whatever she learnt doesn't seem to have been much applied here! (In an aside - I was told that the reason that Mrs F was given the Social Service portfolio (apart from the fact that the experienced councillors wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole) was that HRH H, misunderstood it as 'Social Services'. Probably a gross and cruel calumny).